What is "Fine Art"?

[HerrBremerhaven]

Hello Peter,

I don't think it is so much of how it is produced, as it is whether or not it is shown, and in what context it is shown. Coming from a painting background, I see one off artwork could be considered fine art, which I suppose could lead some to think I would be biased against editions, or limited editions. My own choice is one off images for my photography displayed as fine art, though I recently had one of my fine art images chosen for use in an ad campaign (many thousands of reprints off a press); there is still only one original bit of film, and one chemical print from that.

There are many good explanations and thoughts in this thread. While getting a one true definition or concept might be elusive, hopefully reading all these posts gives you an idea of how to express this concept to your own satisfaction. If you want to define it very tightly, or be somewhat loose in your interpretation, I think few would take offense, nor would many consider it wrong.

The one original in photography is that frame of film that captured that image. Anything after that is a reproduction, though the choices of reproduction are often aspects that lead to heated discussions. My opinion is that inkjet reproduction is more like poster printing, but despite what I think about this there are numerous photographers selling inkjet prints as fine art prints. There is no mob rule in fine art, though we can only look back years from now to see how our current situation affects art history.

Technically if I wanted to use cardboard or newsprint and draw on it with magic markers, it could be fine art . . . if I can get a juror to accept it to an exhibit, or get a gallery to display it. While such an image would not be archival and probably fall apart after a couple years, it would still be fine art, just not finely made fine art. I have seen this often outside of photography, with paintings or scultures done in such a way that I know they will deteriorate, sometimes rapidly. I have also seen interesting exhibits involving wax cast sculptures that burned and melted, lasting only for a short time during the opening, and perhaps only retained for future generations viewing as a series of stills or a video. There has also been video as fine art, some of it I think very poorly done, though a few surprises.

The wonderful thing about the art world is that everything is in a constant state of change and motion. If you really want to push some aspects of your photography, perhaps you want to state that is it traditional photography, rather than just fine art.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Dead Link Removed

 

[Curt]

I didn't read any of the replies so I can say what I think is Fine Art Photography. I believe it is Photography taken without the desire to make it commercial. That's not to say that any Photo can be used commercially. I believe it's Photography for Photographys sake.

 

[clay]

Hmmmm..... Where you stand depends on where you sit.

To me, fine art is anything done without a computer. It is something that takes real human talent. It is a craft that is learned over time and perfected using your human skills and talents, not a programmers that has provided algorithms to give you the ability to reproduce within his constraints not through the expansion of your own progressive creativity.

Kev

 

[John McCallum]

Luv David G.'s answer. Succinct and accurate from my perspective.

A cynical answer to the question "is it fine art?" might be

It is Fine Art if it is designed to be received and successful by[in] the marketing machine of the world of collectable art, whilst holding true to the artist's intentions.

incidentally the last part seems often to be molded by the middle part, and certainly isn't essential to the process.

When people ask me what I do I have several choices. I can just tell them I'm a photographer. But they never seem satisfied with that and ask if I shoot weddings, etc. I have replied by saying that I'm a "landscape photographer" and then people ask me if there's a good living to be made in photographing gardens. So out of the desire not to call myself an "art photographer" or "fine art photographer" I tell them a far more detailed and lengthy description of what I do. Like," I travel around and shoot B&W photos of landscapes and scenes and then make prints which get sold in galleries" which still sounds pretentious and then they ask me if I own the galleries. I guess if I did they could then generalize me as a "gallery owner".

Simple fact of the matter is that if you make your living by selling prints or "art" that no matter what you say, short of not saying anything, it's bound to sound pretentious to someone. Using the term "art photographer" doesn't work well either because most people seem to think that anything to do with art is BS or that it's just a hobby of mine. I guess I'm stuck with the long answer.

Though certainly not as far down the road as you Brian, I commonly run into the same line of questioning and end up with the same conundrum of what's an appropriate answer in this situation?. Depending on my knowledge of the enquirer and if they seem unlikely to be receptive to a long answer, I'll dumb it right down - "I do photographic art - for the walls". Usually that will prick their curiosity enough to enquire further. If I wish to, I can then tell them more on my own terms.

 

[Harrigan]

Fine Art to me is art done absolutly and entirely without the influence of money or selling the piece. Fine art is not made for sale because selling pieces effects the art created. Fine art is pure and made without these outside distractions purely for satisfaction.

If you make prints expressly for selling you are doing commercial art.

Fine art to me is not made to sell its made as art only. Don't get me wrong you can sell fine art but the imagery, painting or whatever it is is made without these outside influences of money that inherently effect the images. Imagery made without the influence of selling.

 

[blansky]

Fine Art to me is art done absolutly and entirely without the influence of money or selling the piece. Fine art is not made for sale because selling pieces effects the art created. Fine art is pure and made without these outside distractions purely for satisfaction.

If you make prints expressly for selling you are doing commercial art.

Fine art to me is not made to sell its made as art only. Don't get me wrong you can sell fine art but the imagery, painting or whatever it is is made without these outside influences of money that inherently effect the images. Imagery made without the influence of selling.

Money is evil.

Photography for money is evil.

As soon as money is involved, the work is not "pure".

What a load of hogwash.

Michael

 

[scootermm]

Money is evil.

Photography for money is evil.

photography is evil.

we are all evil.

I mean, duh, we are human ... and humans are just plain evil.

like the "fruits of the DEVEEEL"

 

[Early Riser]

Fine Art to me is art done absolutly and entirely without the influence of money or selling the piece. Fine art is not made for sale because selling pieces effects the art created. Fine art is pure and made without these outside distractions purely for satisfaction.

If you make prints expressly for selling you are doing commercial art.

Fine art to me is not made to sell its made as art only. Don't get me wrong you can sell fine art but the imagery, painting or whatever it is is made without these outside influences of money that inherently effect the images. Imagery made without the influence of selling.

Ok so we cross off all the works by Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Titian, Botticelli, Rembrandt, Renoir, Picasso, Monet, etc. Clearly by your standard their work is not art but someone's paint by numbers is. Glad we got that all straightened out, now let's replace that tacky Sistine chapel ceiling with some Elvis's on black velvet.

 

[John McCallum]

Exactly.

Sorry Harrigan, but put on a thin black knit and wake up and smell the beaujolais .

 

[MattKing]

I think Harrigan should be congratulated - as far as I can recall, this is the quickest and largest amount of agreement on a subject concerning "art" that I have witnessed since I started visiting APUG .

FWIW, to me, for photography to be considered "Fine Art Photography", it must something different than a simple record, or illustration, or representation that is intended to fulfill another purpose (such as sell another product).

The photograph must be created with an intention that it convey an impression, message, view, emotion or feeling, and with the expectation that it accomplish its task by being viewed, in person. It might reasonably be expected to be hung on a wall, or a desk, or a shelf, with a frame (although other display options are a possibility (murals?).

I guess I am trying to say that a "Fine Art Photograph" is the reason for its own existence. It needs to either stand on its own, or in the case of photographs in a series, in conjunction with other parts of the series. The photograph needs to be and make its own statement, to be a Fine Art Photograph.

It is certainly possible that other types of photography can both accomplish other purposes and at the same time be imbued with artistic purpose and vision (e.g. travel photographs, journalism or cinematography).

I acknowledge that this description tends to exclude from consideration photographs that form part of more multi-disciplinary and multi-media forms of artistic expression. I expect there is some way of rewording the description to include those as well, but I cannot quite figure out how.

Matt

 

[John McCallum]

I don't think that " photography that is intended to be viewed, and might reasonably be expected to be on a wall" defines it well enough. There is all sorts of photography that will fulfill these criterior.

For the sake of discussion. Should FA include my photo of my cat, favourite fishing spot ... great uncle Jock Macdougle?

Many think it should be absolutely pure/meaningful/angst-ridden from the emancipated heart and graft of years at the technique grindstone for naught in commercial compromise. I have met people like this who after a lifetime of pure, meaningful, angst ridden technical graft, they add unsold and extremely unsatisfied to the list.

So perhaps it is somewhere in between. That is, something that someone else wishes to own so much they'll pay money for it. If you're lucky they want to buy for the reasons you made the image.

If it is this, then I suggest the point at which art is regarded as Fine Art is defined by the art market. when as D.G. put it so eloquently earlier, it can be defined legitimately in the tax system.

 

[roteague]

If you make prints expressly for selling you are doing commercial art.

I understand your sentiments, but can't agree with you. Every print I make is with the express purpose of selling it; both as a means to share the image with others, and to make a living doing what I love most in the world.

 

[stevebarry]

lots of egos here. very few people understand art. any real artist can take a great photo, but few photographers make "art". evreything gets called "art" today....the breakdown of authority....everyone is an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. on the internet.

 

[roteague]

lots of egos here. very few people understand art. any real artist can take a great photo, but few photographers make "art". evreything gets called "art" today....the breakdown of authority....everyone is an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. on the internet.

What do you consider your work to be?

 

[stevebarry]

What do you consider your work to be?

not much of anything yet....but you havent seen any of it....so whatcha gettin at?

 

[roteague]

not much of anything yet....but you havent seen any of it....so whatcha gettin at?

Just trying to see what your opinion of your own work is. I've looked at your work, and it looks good to me - I would call it "art", and I hope you do as well.

 

[stevebarry]

Just trying to see what your opinion of your own work is. I've looked at your work, and it looks good to me - I would call it "art", and I hope you do as well.

its drastically different from what most here seem to consider art though.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think that defines it well enough.

You are absolutely right, and I have tried to reword my previous post to make more sense!

Matt

 

[John McCallum]

Can see what you're getting at.

its drastically different from what most here seem to consider art though.

OK enough teasing Steve. Jump in, the water's warm.

 

[stevebarry]

all im sayin, is when talking about art photographers, you cant compare the "fine art photographer" examples given in this thread to say : evans, weston, freidlander, bullock, shore, eggleston, etc. can you?

i am no arbiter of what is and is not art, just saying....most things labeled "fine art" these days, i would not consider art. for the most part. if that makes sense.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Rather a dense collection of cryptic statements here!

lots of egos here.

On APUG, or in the art world? And is this good or bad? A certain amount of self-belief and self-assertion is essential if you are going to present work to the world.

very few people understand art.

Artists in general have the aim of making their art as understandable and accessible as possible (as opposed to critics, who mainly want to mystify everything and justify their own existence). Presumably the "very few" includes yourself?

any real artist can take a great photo, but few photographers make "art".

No and yes - lack of skills training is a major handicap for a photographic artist - you need to understand how the camera sees, be quick in operating your camera if necessary and understand how to manipulate the medium to make it say what you want it to say. Yes, few photographers produce art - it's too easy to be sidetracked by photographic technology, and dealing with the emotional journey of becoming an artist is more than most photographers can handle.

evreything gets called "art" today....the breakdown of authority....everyone is an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. on the internet.

Automatic deference to authority was that great mindset that brought us the Holocaust, the Vietnam war, etc., so three cheers that it has broken down. Yes, everyone can be an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. today on the Internet - but to be GOOD, you need the same qualities that were always necessary!

Regards,

David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Any definition you choose can be shown to be incomplete. The artist doesn't even have to make the piece, cf. Duchamps' famous 'R. Mutt' urinal. Or it can be made in a substantially identical series: etchings, silk-screens and, yes, photo prints. And as I said earlier, and as has been illustrated by several others, the separation between 'fine' and 'applied' art just didn't exist until comparatively recently.

In particular, most of the great painters of religious scenes and portraitists before 1700 (arguably before 1800) were producing 'applied art', to an agreed theme, often with specified (and highly formalized) content, for a specific purpose, at the behest of a paying patron. The same is true of ikon painters and thangka painters today. What they produce may be great art, that anyone would be proud to have on his wall, but the term 'fine art' is substantially meaningless in that context.

The Romantic Movement of the mid-to-late 18th century was to a large extent responsible for the concept of the Artist, complete with garrets, drugs, etc; the Tortured Genius was a still later invention.

If people buy your work to hang on the wall, you're probably a Fine Artist, or at least, you've produced Fine Art, regardless of what people call you or why you first created it. As for what you call yourself or your work, I hesitate to label anything I have ever done as Fine Art, even when someone has bought a picture to hang on their wall, simply because the term has been so devalued in the 20th century.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, commercial, political, educational and more, but it strikes me as an odd subject to get excited about.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[catem]

I think it's important to remember there's a difference between what's meant by 'Photography as a Fine Art' and 'Fine Art Photography' as it is used as a marketing tool (which is how it's been raised here). It seems to me they mean different things, not only in terms of subject matter and intention/presence of the "artist", but also in the way the work is finally produced - so for example 'Fine Art Photography' becomes a way of saying processed by the photographer in a certain way, (which is not true necessarily of photography as fine art) aswell as having very individual imput from the photographer.

Language, and meanings, change. The irony is that if it's true that everybody really is using this term to describe their work, regardless of what kind of work it is, (I don't know if that's happenning or not, but was the suggestion) then eventually it becomes pretty meaningless - it encompasses everything that is done with care, by an individual, and is probably processed by hand as a 'one-off'. However, that's not to say people shouldn't use it, or that it's not an important way for the potential customer to tell they may be getting something a little different from the high-street photographer/ lab.

Cate

 

[clay]

When I used to work for a large company, I quickly realized that whenever upper management issued an announcement saying "We have no plans at this time to reduce our workforce", that really meant within two weeks there would be a significant lay-off of workers. I get the same feeling whenever I hear the phrase 'Fine Art Photography'

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm not getting into this one, but you may find some hints here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography